|
EdHieron said:
My argument is based on the only proper yardstick(s) that the industry has for measuring the quality of games. And, the 360 and PS3 didn't have difficult times getting their fair share of higlhy rated games this gen (which is probabl why when the gen s over they will have a combined market share that is far higher than the Wii's. You don't run around saying that movies that most fillm critics give 3 stars to are equal to or better than movies that they give 5 stars to do you?
|
The one and only yardstick that the industry has for measuring the quality of games is sales. Game ratings, even Metacritic/Gamerankings, are often used nowadays by the industry for measuring the "value" of games from the publisher's perspective... but then, those same publishers also routinely pay off reviewers.
You know why Nintendo titles typically get lower review scores? (you're expecting me to say moneyhats by Sony/MS, aren't you? - admit it, that's what you thought on reading that question). It's because reviewers are highly superficial, and judge games based on what they like, rather than trying to be at least somewhat objective. And since a lot of "hardcore" tended to like PS3/360 over Wii, whenever they were tasked with reviewing a Wii title, they inevitably gave it a lower score than it deserved, often because "it's not HD" (although not usually worded that way, it was clear from the review text).
What I find utterly hilarious is that, in a thread about giving Nintendo a pass, one of the arguments in FAVOUR of having given Nintendo a pass is that review scores were LOWER on Wii. Reviewers refused to give the Wii a pass.
Try having a look at the pattern of review scores on Wii titles. Let's try an example - Monster Hunter Tri. The game got two 100% reviews, 31 more 90%+ reviews, and another 27 that were greater than 80% (and one that was 77%, and one that was 75%). And then there were eight that were 70% or lower. How can a game get such a layout? Well, let's look at one of the two reviews that gave it 60% - the Gamestyle one. "The graphics and sound are decent if unspectacular for the Wii". "So it’s easy to get the impression that the game’s pretty worthless". "It’s also interesting to note that this is only the second Wii game that supports the WiiSpeak add-on" (not true).
Oh, but that's some niche review site, right? OK, Game Informer rated it 70%. "Environments and human characters are bland". Really? They're bland? As opposed to about 99% of all FPS titles nowadays, that you happily describe as having great graphics? You know what the best description for most modern FPSes is? "Brown and Grey".
But I'm sure that's just the case of Monster Hunter. It couldn't possible have happened with other games. Except it does. Oftentimes, you'll see phrases like "the graphics are good... for the Wii" or "It's a good game... for the Wii". The Telegraph reviewed Goldeneye 007 for the Wii (6/10), and said this: "... while it may be one of the better shooters on the Wii, that's not saying a lot". But here's the key description that makes my point: "... but without any of the polish or draw of the majority of FPS titles". Eurogamer gave it a 7/10, with phrases like "...but they are as muted as the game's environments" and "... the same can't be said of the Wii hardware itself, which at times struggles to keep up with the developer's vision". It's usually very slightly obscured, but not all that much so. And even as the Eurogamer (and the Telegraph) review keeps reiterating its similarity to Modern Warfare, almost as though it's a negative.
So let's look at what Eurogamer said about Modern Warfare on the Wii. "There's no denying that Modern Warfare remains one of the best shooters available, both in single and multiplayer, but releasing a technically crippled version two years later on Wii is a curious decision", and "... the game just doesn't feel at home on Nintendo's platform". Yeah, nice and objective, right?
So next time you want to claim that Nintendo was given a pass, try stopping and actually thinking about it. The fact is, people who didn't have a problem with the Wii not being a powerhouse are actually wondering why it never got a single pass from the gaming media.
EDIT: Even when discussing one of the highest-rated games of all time, Mario Galaxy, when talking about the graphics, IGN, for instance, feels it must describe them as "cutting edge (for the Wii)". This is the attitude that the entire gaming media took to it. They couldn't possibly call a Wii game good-looking, they had to describe it as "good-looking for the Wii". And it was the same with other elements, too - "good controls, for a Wii game", etc.
